Zoning | District 6

Is Employment Lands Framework Dead?

Tax Base Erosion Night lived up to its name last Tuesday at the Council meeting as a truck drove through the Employment Lands Framework. Council voted 8-3 to amend the General Plan and allow new townhouses instead of reserving land for jobs next to Santana Row. Thank you to Rose Herrera and Sam Liccardo for voting to hold the line and retain our tax base.
In 2007, I was on a bus tour of San Jose with the General Plan Task Force. I thought the bus ride was more like the “Damage is Done Tour.” Driving past parcel after parcel of land rezoned from jobs to housing. Just when you think that we can learn from the past we turn a blind eye and continue doing the same old thing. After the vote was cast, I made a second motion that would have required that an office building be built at the same time as the housing rather than … Some Day … but that was voted down 8-3 as well.

To learn more, watch the video of the Tuesday, Dec. 7 council meeting, agenda item 10.3 — or advance by clicking to the 5th Hour 41st Minute (5:41).

Here is what I suggest if you’re interested in making money:

Step 1: Locate land designated for employment and get it under contract.
Step 2: Hire a lobbyist.
Step 3: Provide drawings of your future development that include kids with balloons.
Step 4: Divide the parcel for a … Some Day … office building on a small portion of the property.
Step 5: Require housing go first on the large portion of the property.
Step 6: Obtain affirmative vote from Council.
Step 7: Sell your entitlement to a home builder and fly to Hawaii (SJC please).

Today the Council will have a study session on Medical Marijuana. I believe the Council should implement Measure U which passed with 78.3 percent of the vote. Therefore, any medical cannabis facility should provide a third party financial audit to our Finance department and start paying a gross receipts tax.

Also posted in Medical Marijuana, Politics | Comments closed

Tax Base Erosion Night

It is that time of year again, with lobbyists circling City Hall in preparation for the General Plan hearings.

With the leadership of Mayor Reed, modifications to our General Plan (GP) have been reduced to once a year, for the most part. At the GP hearings, applicants make their case as to why current land-use designations should be changed to allow for the applicant to build what they want, regardless of how the land is currently zoned.

These “conversion” requests are typically for land that is industrial/commercial to housing. Or it could be extending the urban growth boundary to allow for more suburban sprawl. By the way, San Jose currently has over 21,000 units of housing approved and entitled on land zoned residential that has not started construction.

With more conversions of our industrial, commercial and retail land, we are pecking away the tax base a little at a time, which narrows our future options down the road.

Either you view San Jose as a dead city with little chance of economic growth (so go ahead and convert each proposal put before you because it doesn’t matter), or you have the view that there is future potential for San Jose to bring more small business and large business. I feel San Jose has not reached it’s potential but will be severely handicapped if we allow death by a thousand cuts when it comes to land use. San Jose will be fighting for a smaller piece of the economic pie in the United States as globalization continues and our national debt reels out of control. San Jose should control it’s destiny by standing firm in not changing land-use designations to housing.

At the budget hearings on Nov. 18, I shared that I would have a very difficult time asking employees for wage concessions if the Council cannot hold the line on the conversion of employment land. Seems only fair: If you are going to ask someone for money to pay your utility bill, don’t leave the furnace on all day when you’re at work. The Council has had to tell residents and employees “no” this fiscal year because of past decisions. I cannot and will not jeopardize more city jobs that provide services with conversions that hurt our future tax base.

In one of my first votes on the City Council, I voted to rezone industrial land to housing. I later wrote about my regrets regarding this vote.

One of the proposed exceptions that the Council denied in May 2008 on a 6-5 vote is back again with a different lobbyist. The same property owner also owns land where the proposed baseball stadium would be located. I met with the property owner representatives who said if the City would rezone this piece of land then they would consider selling the other piece of land to the City for baseball. I believe each rezoning should be judged on its own merits and not tied to a quid pro quo. I wrote about this property the last time it came to Council.

Exceptions to our General Plan (tax base erosion) will be heard Tuesday, Dec. 7, not before 7:15pm. I would be impressed if more than one person, whether it be city employees or San Jose residents, would speak at the Council meeting and simply say, “hold the line—please do not convert our future tax base.”

Congratulations to the Willow Glen Rams winning the CCS Division 2 Football championship over Sequoia of Redwood City. An incredible season that rallied the school and neighborhood. The star quarterback is the son of my classmate and friend from Willow Glen High. Sadly, my friend passed away from cancer several years ago however his son is the spitting image of his father, which makes it a very special victory.

Also posted in Budget, City Council, General Plan, Politics | Comments closed

Land Banking Without Public Money

Last week, at the Council meeting, there was a contentious land use item. A housing developer is asking the council to approve a rezoning of land to allow a 117-unit affordable Shared Room Occupancy (SRO).

Currently, there are business owners, adjacent property owners, and residents who do not support this project. I have been a councilmember for more than two years and I have never seen each of these groups on the same page. Ninety-five percent of the adjacent property owners are against the rezoning. They took the time to file and get their signatures notarized for a zoning protest application and therefore it requires eight council votes to approve the project instead of six.

Ninety-five percent is unheard of—thus showing a high level of opposition. One of the adjacent industrial property owners said, “where will people work in San Jose if the Council continues to change land for jobs to land for housing?” Industrial uses are becoming harder to locate in this City since residents do not want noise or truck traffic.

All of the speakers spoke against the rezoning at the council meeting. I had already heard these comments, because I attended the community meeting in my district for this project and watched the entire planning commission discussion. Furthermore, they have e-mailed the council and mayor regarding their concerns. For many of the residents, this was their first experience with the City of San Jose since their neighborhood is being annexed.

I am a member of the General Plan 2040 Task force (GP2040). This makes me think of the best long-term uses of land citywide. In the past the council has made decisions based on the short-term rather then the long-term view. GP2040 is about learning from historical mistakes, being strategic with land use and planning our future.

The council spent over $100 million being strategic by «land banking» to provide development sites which have led to economic development. However, we also have the power to land bank without spending a dime … by simply voting no on projects that do not have the best long term interest for the City.

I believe that saying “just say no” to conversion of commercial/industrial land equals more land for jobs and a tax base to pay for neighborhood services.

The location is a gateway parcel on San Carlos between Sunol and McEvoy linking Downtown to Santana Row. The current proposal divides two other parcels (Sam’s Downtown Feed & Pizza Jacks) which does not allow for a development that is more focused on economic development. This odd shaped parcel does not allow for proper parking to be built out underneath since it divides two other properties. Otherwise the proposed parking is problematic for the neighborhood since it only provides 65 parking spaces for maximum occupancy of 234 people.

Shasta-Hanchett neighborhood board members have said, “If we are going to get a baseball stadium, wouldn’t this land would become more valuable?” I agree with them. This parcel should have an economic development aspect that could also have housing (affordable or market rate) on the top of significant retail by developing the entire parcel and not a divided one.

The current affordable housing proposal does not pay park fees or construction tax fees in a neighborhood that is identified as park deficient. We spoke about this deficiency Sept. 8 at the council study session for the Greenprint, and this rezoning would exacerbate the problem. San Jose has lost out on as much $60-90 million in park fees alone.

There is some concern about the concentration of affordable housing in this area. There is an affordable housing project right down street at the old Fiesta Lanes Bowl (another commercial-to-residential land conversion). 1,000 feet away we have eight stories of affordable housing on Bird and San Carlos and 300 feet from that another affordable project called Esperanza. A 100-percent affordable project on Lenzen, affordable senior housing next to MidTown Safeway. 400 feet the other direction 777 Park Ave. will be another 100 percent affordable project of 200 units. The Council just approved 42 affordable units on San Carlos and Meridian this Spring.

In December of this year, the Council will get another proposal on a mixed use project of 160 affordable units right across the street however that parcel is already zoned residential. Unlike the 1,500 additional housing units where housing was not planned, like DelMonte Cannery (600 units), Lou’s Village (100 units) and Sobrato office park (800 units).

Based on annexation zoning rules we can look at this parcel in two years when we know if there will be a future ballpark or not. Construction on this development was not going to occur for 2-3 years anyway so now is not the time to rezone. Due to the 2-3 year out construction schedule, there is no viable argument that this will spur construction jobs.

The proposed SRO would be in the vicinity of a proposed light rail station that other developers have given money towards; however, the VTA has not given a firm commitment to fund the station. (By the way, a light rail station does not need to be art, just give me an ADA compliant concrete slab and then in the future if we have the money we can do something fancy.)

I made a motion to deny the rezoning and was seconded by the mayor. The developer asked for another week to try and work with the adjacent property owners to make the project better. The council gave the developer a week to make it work. It’s not about the project; its about the loss of employment land and the loss of infrastructure fees for the City.

Saying no to bad proposals is cheaper then land banking with public funds.

Also posted in Politics | Comments closed

Buyer Beware

One of the most important responsibilities a councilmember has is working on constituent issues. So far, my office has managed 4,675 constituent issues, which I refer to as “cases.” I set up a web database that allows constituents to track our case work in real time online.

In most cases we are successful in resolving the issue or concern. In other cases, constituents just want to share their comments on a particular matter. Some of the cases are comments on federal or state policy or other requests that are above and beyond what the city budget can provide, like, “please spend millions of dollars on a certain project” or “we want vintage street lights” when others streets do not even have street lights.

Recently, I had a request that came from a constituent who is a professional in the commercial real estate industry and is a veteran at purchasing property. He contacted my office a few months ago after purchasing a piece of property on Meridian Avenue. Unfortunately, this person did not contact the San Jose Planning Department before he bought the property to check how the property was zoned. He wanted me to tell the Planning Department to change the zoning to fit what he thought should be there instead of what the zoning has been for the past 30 years.

This request reminds me of the old adage: “buyer beware.” For example, someone may buy a home near a bar, school or church and then complain about the noise and parking. Well, it is the due diligence of the buyer to research the area, check zoning as well as any inspections a home or property may need. To choose to complain instead of taking responsibility for the purchase lacks credibility.

There are two things to remember when purchasing property; one, when you buy property, check out the zoning first so you know what you’re getting into—and if you do not like the zoning do not buy it. Second, if you buy a property and want to change the zoning, be prepared to invest time and money to do so, and figure that into the cost you pay for the property. Councilmembers cannot snap their fingers to change the zoning in the General Plan or at the whim of a real estate professional who thinks that their opinion should override the General Plan process.

I feel sorry for this person since he put himself into a predicament. However, blaming government for your own lack of due diligence is probably not going to help matters. In this particular case, I have met with the planning department and even asked the planning director to get involved to see how we might be able to help this person even though he is the one that did not take responsibility. The director is pursuing possibilities on how we might be able to help, but the real estate professional is still not pleased.

I remember from the private sector that sometimes there was the client who was never happy no matter how much you gave of yourself to help them, even when they made the mistake. So, in those cases sometimes you parted ways with the customer, since mutual respect was absent. Sometimes working on constituent issues is like working with private-sector clients, and we try to help, but have to admit that we cannot please everyone every time.

Also posted in City Council, Politics | Comments closed

Take Action!
Whole Foods Grand Opening
Connect
Three Creeks Trail Discussion
Connect on Facebook
Search the Blogs!

Is Employment Lands Framework Dead?

Tax Base Erosion Night

Land Banking Without Public Money

Buyer Beware

Take Action!

Whole Foods Grand Opening

Connect

Three Creeks Trail Discussion

Connect on Facebook

Search the Blogs!